How Do You Know You Exist?
Every person, as a self, body, or both, knows they exist. But that knowledge is certainly variable with concern to each one, as a lot of philosophies about proving one's existence have emerged, and are known for their common contradictions.
What's yours? I would like to hear from you.
What's yours? I would like to hear from you.
Comments (113)
For me, one great thing about ageing is getting more comfortable with the utter abandonment that I feel at times. I kind of revel in the fact that I've learned how to do that.
I've been listening lately to Bowie's last album--especially Lazarus and Blackstar, and I find it so comforting how he made beautiful art out of dying. Bowie was sublime, and so is anxiety, in a way...
Cogito ergo sum.
But I can only prove that with any 100% certainty to myself, not to you.
I am pretty sure of the proof claiming the diagonal of a rectangle is a certain value. I use it all the time with no problems coming up so far.
I don't understand the doubting of existence thing. I have a lot of problems but none of them look like that. I just don't get it.
These issues are discussed by Heidegger with his conept of Dasein, and by nonrepresentationalist language philosophers like Quine, who argue that the meaning of any word (like 'self' or 'existence') has no absolute value but depends on the context in which it is used.
Not trying to be clever by saying that. If I knew anything in some universally applicable sense then I would know everything and be nothing - they’d be no room for relation via doubt. As I can question my existence I understand I am necessarily limited, or I wouldn’t be able to ‘understand’: I wouldn’t be able to ‘think’.
It is maybe more tricky to grasp what I am saying than I personally believe because generally ‘knowing’ is not regarded as some ‘absolute-knowing’ in the manner I’ve framed it. I’d also add though that by the manner in which you’ve framed you question you’re actually framing the meaning-use of ‘knowing’ in precisely the same way.
The universe exists because it cannot fully be fathomed. Consciousness exists because it cannot fully be fathomed. Items of imagination exist because they’re abstracted from something - experience/s - that cannot fully be fathomed. Yet we use the term ‘knowing’ in more day-to-day sense as a system of navigation (recognition, communication and efficiency seeking).
This is not a relativistic position! Doubting doesn’t mean I avoid sustenance, self-preservation and exploration.
If I could prove the relative physicalistic existence of my being (exist, as the general natural world) no one would understand it and I’d no longer ‘exist’. It’s more about the question being limited in it’s range and assuming it means something ‘beyond’ comprehension.
I found Kant the most clinical in this investigation of ‘existing’ - although it was never his direct attention to address this apparent question. Heidegger is also quite interesting (even if he’s more evasive than precise, he at least presents some nice perspectives from which to view the epistemic/ontic problems). Also, Husserl is another who flits on the fringes of this topic - much like Kant. But Husserl is more concerned with ‘bracketing out’ such questioning in order to delve more readily into the machinations (an indirect, and disinterested, approach: something in common with Kant even if their overarching approaches differ dramatically!).
That’ll do! I tried to be precise and succinct enough not to cause a headache (probably failed) :D
Depends on what you mean by "know" and "exist".
For the first part, to me, knowing is acting modulo reasoning. For a pragmatic treatment (i.e. not spiritual one), reasoning is means to an end. It isn't there for your fulfillment. You know that you exist as much as you know that the stove is hot. In some sense, you don't. But acting like the stove is cold has consequences, and you choose knowledge as the opposite is not feasible. You are specific and in specific circumstances, and in no position to bail out from the present. You are already involved, and as a result you have to think in correspondence with the situation. Existence was there before you, and now you have to come to terms with it. The point - knowing about existence is like knowledge in general - a matter of necessity, prompted by the matter of fact.
As to what the concept of existence is. First, speaking generally, it is the quality of presence in the totality, or the rejection of the absence from the totality of things. In other words, it is a statement about the world. Your being posits that you are part of this totality and have agency in the universe. This is both vacuous and necessary. If you were not a part of the totality, then your reasoning wouldn't make sense. Thus, to think that you are not part of the totality is a contradiction. The key is - are you an absurdity? You either exist sensibly and think that you are, or you exist non-sensibly and think that you aren't (which will devolve and obstruct your agency in the world), or you don't exist, and you have no thoughts, or you don't exist and our logic is unsound, the universe is absurd, and your thoughts have no truth value. Which my reasoning (and probably yours) opposes instinctively, because it uses logic to operate. Which isn't a matter of choice.
A few caveats. There is also the question - how do you know that the world reveals the actual totality, and not a subset of it. You don't. Although, you act like you do by necessity.
Finally, from the point of view of spirituality, the above does not exhaust the question. But I don't think that there is anything spiritual that can be conveyed on that subject without some kind of specific meta-language and conceptualization of a different kind. Spirituality isn't a logical subject matter to begin with.
One cannot not know he exists unless he exists. One can only doubt his existence if he exists. Existence is a precondition to both knowing and doubting.
Either prove that P or it's implied that one must doubt that P is quite the false dichotomy.
I think what's more disorienting and freaky is the thought that nothing really validates our own collective existence. I mean everything is materially continuous, and without our brains placing meaning and significance on the intrinsic patterns in the universe, and distinguishing tables from chairs, dogs from cats; there'd be nothing to do so.. it would just be what it always was; one blob of matter in motion.
All of those things we distinguish from surroundings, we do because of very human-centered reasons. An intelligent agent with a completely different set of sensors and body design may find other distinctions relevant to it and may completely discount our existence because to form a visual boundary around and define a 'human' or 'dog' or 'cat' may completely be irrelevant to it. Maybe its brain operates on a timescale of hundreds of years as opposed to miliseconds, or nanoseconds as opposed to miliseconds and so it just misses us; maybe it's so tiny it finds objects on the bacterial scale of size relevant. etc. But the point is, there's nothing really substantiating our existence; we just collectively validate each other's existence because we interact with each other.
Descartes doesn’t merely presume, as you’d have it, the “I” as a premise, indeed, he demonstrates (so it cannot be a mere presumption) that, when in doubt, doubting its existence is impossible (while doubting virtually everything else is possible, like the reality of external things [after all, these could all possibly be mere items of a dream, i.e., perception-dependent objects]), such that the reality of it is immediately perceived in this very particular moment of attempting to do so. Thus no presumption, but immediate perception.
In one of his replies to the objections to the Meditations, he even addressed this himself, "When someone says, 'I am thinking, therefore I am, or I exist', he does not deduce existence from thought by means of a syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind. This is clear from the fact that if he were deducing it by means of a syllogism, he would have to have had previous knowledge of the major premise, 'Everything which thinks is, or exists'; yet in fact he learns it from experiencing in his own case that it is impossible that he should think without existing."
(2) ".....it is impossible that he should think without existing". Exactly. Therefore - because thinking without existing is impossible - thinking proofs that we exist! (With all its further implications …..)
We assume that thinking is real, because we are thinking, and we exist. If we didn't exist, any consequence of us thinking, which includes being, and contradicts us not being, would also require us to be in fact. I agree with . I don't think we can conclude our own existence logically. We may not need to.
PS. Although in terms of the argument between aRealidealist and Daniel C, I have no idea whether Descartes proved or witnessed his existence. Daniel C is at least correct that the usual interpretation of Descartes by most people (including my illiterate self) is that reason is evidence for being in fact. I am also not arguing whether we exist. But I don't think that assuming existence is a choice.
A better approach would be the Sartrean stare. You know you exist when someone looks at you with contempt.
I prefer Quoting Terrapin Station
Indeed; who would have the proof?
Absurd. Was that your point?
How can you, unless there is a you to do so?
Why do you need proof? Why the preference for doubt here?
Even Descartes? It was a terrible mistake on his part to seek certainty.
There's just one thing, before you do that, to bear in mind. Ancient philosophy - west and east - had its beginnings with the appeal to the Rational in man - and that has never changed! (If you try to change that the whole discipline collapses - full stop
Knowing is possible because we can doubt, not because we cannot doubt.
(2) “Exactly. Therefore - because thinking without existing is impossible - thinking proofs that we exist! (With all its further implications …..)”
... but the WHOLE point is, that, “existence”, outside of this or any particular state of thought, itself is never something which is actually observed or known by us! Thus the reality or existence of ourself is observable & identifiable with these particular & actual states of thought or perception, & isn’t to be looked for beyond or outside of these.
What would be irrational would be to doubt where doubt is incoherent.
Banno has coffee, therefore, there is a Banno.
SO if we use "know" to mean something it doesn't...
The very fact you ask me this .. is more than enough to at least solidify, I know I exist .. (in part from another, in some sense...) - certainty, not required - just a distraction .. (never mind various minds interacting with themselves on this thread). Seems pseudo. There is only a matter of time before any argument otherwise just refutes itself.
As for whether or not the self exists, who cares. Selves do not die any more than they live.
I know this: I can't think of any 'grounds to doubt' that I exist which do not also presuppose that I exist; 'doubting that I exist' is, in fact, a performative contradiction.
I sensibly know he exists. I have confirmed it.
I thought the Devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he doesn't exist. :smile:
What about the idea of possible worlds? It seems that apart from contradictions everything is possible. This is rather a truism since arguments for nonexistence generally follow the pattern in which the existence of something is shown to result in a contradiction, thereby proving nonexistence.
Proving existence then involves demonstrating an absence of contradictions and proving nonexistence requires one to show that a contradiction follows.
This method utilizes the notion of possible worlds.
That’s about as much as I can be certain of.
I see why you want to go there, but I'm not quite sure of that in general. Before even being in a position to question one's existence I think there are at least 3 prerequisites: 1. (self)consciousness and 2. some internal context/framework that 'you' as a consciousness cognitive agent can sense as operate within, and 3. have the ability to control/affect it. A consciousness concluding it exists must have a need a framework to understand itself and what the answer would mean to itself, apart from external reference points. Like seeing one's self in the mirror, pinching your skin to feel the causal connection, hurting yourself to feel the pain, stopping your thought to prove your self-agency, etc.
That is, I'd say the only reason why we believe in our own consciousness as being real and existing is because we have no strong experiential evidence to the contrary. In my current model, consciousness is a resonant condition within the internal and external boundaries the “I” operates within. However, the self-awareness aspect of experiential/qualia consciousness also tracks the time evolution of this resonant consciousness wave function (currently, I’m modelling that as a quantum pilot wave) and we call that (quantum knot) history as defining our unique thinking existence as a coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, so we are completely calling that time evolved resonant wave pattern the “I” ‘story’ and concluding that we exist at least as a thinking being. This is at least one way that I believe Descartes gets it wrong. For example, in brain with a multiple personality disorder, I’d says that they do not have a single resonant consciousness wave function that collapses into one coherent, self-consistent emanation of the same consciousness cognitive agent, but many. So, any one of the resonant consciousness wave functions will only resonate with the resonant consciousness wave function (of its multiple personality choices) that is a coherent time evolution (quantum knot) history with its own wave function signature. That resonant consciousness would still be aware of the other a time evolution (quantum knot) histories (of the other people/personalities in their head) but ascribe those to supernatural hijacking of their brains/thoughts (e.g., demonic possession, spirits, other ‘people’ in their brains, etc.), thus they would not say that those other, equally valid versions of themselves, are part of them, but foreign mental invaders.
In this way, I’d say that consciousness can never be self-assess as a snapshot in time, but has to be part of a self-consistent path history (like a story/narrative) that all points to the same resonant focal point/pattern that you call you. Mess with that, and your sense of self consciousness/identity should degrade and vanish into a chaos ideas, facts, memories but without any form, function, or purpose, which I not call that ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’, so a problem to the Descartes way of evidencing oneself.
Furthermore, under my framework, to establish one’s self-consciousness we have to be able to explore all our boundary conditions that ware resonating within and their nature must be accessible/determinable wrt their form, function, or purpose in influencing the landscape that the consciousness agent in question is resonating with and within. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to observe a time-evolution history path where their ‘thought’ could in-fact modify those boundary conditions and that had a correlated, esp. if *expected*, effect on their conscious state of being to ‘feel’ they are alive and the executive center of the (resonating) system. Then, the consciousness agent in question would have to learn and use those associations as tools to manipulate itself (the best it can) to achieve goal states of being. Towards a definition qualia consciousness, I’m thinking that the degree that the consciousness agent in question can do the above, it has ever higher orders of qualia consciousness.
In the context of the Cogito Ergo Sum vs. Solipsism points of view, I’d say that my above model applies to both, but both are malformed hypothesis b/c they lack to true mechanics of how consciousness works, so both are far to simplistic ways of forcing a circle into a square, and there will be arguments and evidence for/against each b/c neither is a suitable, complete model. To extend my largely Solipsism supporting framework to the Cogito Ergo Sum view, I believe I just extend the sensory motor boundary of one’s consciousness resonance condition to include other humans of like mind and all the same above mechanics work, and to the extreme case you get a mob, acting as one mind/ consciousness towards a unified form, function, and purpose. They lose individuality and together become the new consciousness of a superorganism much like individual atoms can become lost into a Bose-Einstein condensate fifth state of (consciousness) matter. Once they get out of the superorganism (Bose-Einstein condensate) consciousness state they almost have no memory or explanation of how they could come to think or act to kill/destroy/eradicate/etc. and go back to their comparatively boring mundane lives as individual consciousness agents. I’d say the human ability for this superorganism consciousness state of mind/being evidences against the purist Solipsism views.
I could go on and on, but these are my basic ideas so far on the subject.
Why ask the question if every person knows the answer?
Totally agreed.
While René Descartes is rightfully revered as an indisputable grandee in mathematics, through his highly influential work on coordinate systems and on the analytical geometry built on top of that, his work in self-ontology, cogito ergo sum, is just a silly exercise in futile solipsism.
Well... I suppose it's been perverted into that by some. But I think his point was not solipsistic--he was just examining the limits of certainty. The real lesson from Descartes failure to find any more knowledge absent God's influence (since he did insist on absolute deductivism) is that you can be reasonably convinced X, Y, and Z are true without having absolute 100% certainty that they are.
Really, the cogito becomes a refutation of the merits of the eternal skeptic. The skeptic just doesn't get anywhere, doesn't move the conversation forward, and, in the end, is just kinda boring.
Knowledge (or intelligence) cannot define or delineate existence because it is an expression of existence. Therefore, knowledge or intelligence can be defined/delineated with respect to existence but not vice versa.
Also, it's not that we know we exist but, rather, we can't deny that we exist. Existence is an absolute affirmation. IT IS that which IT IS (Existence Is).
I AM that I AM -> In other words, I AM, no matter how we choose to designate it.
No one exists. We are misinformed corpses.
If i go to work, i get paid at the end of the week. I believe that is definite proof that i exist.
How do you define exist?
That is a lie straight from hell. I just ate that kielbasa, back in your dark hole you arragant thought inside my head!
alright you are the winner. Mine was just like everyone elses but that was different.
How do we define exist and how do we know if we die is the next stupid question that will be asked.
I get that. It means everything. If with it I can regardless on the state of my existence, from my non-existence infer that your existence has no meaning. Then in my non-existence, to which your existence has no meaning, I would have made a direct connection to it. Therefore both of us have real meaning and the state of my existence is non-essential. Feel me?
Certainly; but do you think non-existence would bother with such technicalities?
It does not have to be freaky. Believe you are loved enough in the context that matters to you and there is validation enough to go around. I love you.
God could be placing ideas in a creative way around a soul that does not exist. Then in adhering to its own introspection for the remainder of this idea in itself, the creative soul could with a little aid from within the introspection, be pointed to the fact. That maybe it?
I've got it. In all honesty we've just got to work for it to be worth it. Enough for it to be evident.
The proof is sealed by the understanding of who we also are to exist. Doubt is merely a measure to perpetuate dignity to that conclusion. It's well worth the while.
I wouldn't say that. There's a brave new world out here. Magic and unicorns around every corner.
Ideally so. Ideally too though, it does not exclude what it does not involve; it is simply just not within its ethereal purview. On it we can as a concept preclude what we do not understand and in doing so know what it is. Then it's just a matter of abstracting your way through living. There is no means to a matter - so to say. Boundaries are not my thing.
What would also be irrational is to outrule what it precludes though. It is merely the positions of the doubt that is coherent. Not what rests outside of it. That's where the very boundaries of the frame to think outside of involves initiative.
The oxymoron of samsara. It does have a solution though, which is why we care; I reckon.
How about all those doubts you did not have?
*stands ready to catch the falling*
I'm sort of working my way through it with all my answers on this thread right now. It should qualify in any sensible official regard. I'm not much for the prevalence of authorities.
Watch that mouth.
No. Because that in itself would be a question. Does it produce an answer? If anyone isn't there to be patient enough to answer it - it should then be a smooth operation in conclusion. Who then gets the reply?
What then of proving both? Such as the chain of infinite contradictions amounting to the substance of naught so; which we then found our logic upon. The ultimate contradiction would be that all the contradictions constituting non-existence would amount to the existence of a non-existence, which in term is not a contradiction since that is what existence is. Different same.
I thought the devil's trick failed because the very notion of his existence was too absurd to begin with. The trick only served to have people doubt. So it succeeded, right?
I am conscious about your consciousness. Feel free to act conscious about it. I love life.
Your ideas on qualia are nice. I believe that we are de-facto the qualia of each other. Real substance to it that from the perspective of a single individual is atman. It in turn is the essence of the World Soul, because it constitutes what the soul would be. From here it is a mere matter of interacting with myself in order to reach the conclusion of everyone remembering who I am before I do, in effect giving me the qualia to remember my essence by. Either that or not, until there was no more. To be or not be is the question. I reckon that everyone has given their real answers.
I think the point is for the sceptics to get it though. It might not be so boring as we imagine. Life is all we have far and in between. Although personally I prefer to live the notions rather than speculating on them. Or even better; compose life from them in completely Descarterian ways. Doesn't matter if it persists to any other range than us having a good life of it. Knowing it to the point of the question only acts as joint for the notion of eternal life, to which we can relax; or smoke - preferably both simultaneously.
Be it a Big Bang, a Big Bong or a Big Boing. It all takes us right here. I don't do either.
My love to that.
You know nothing. Salutation.
I'm in deep shit. I don't know.
Alright: pose this;
You cannot doubt yourself in a way wherein your doubt does not pose as proof of your existence. I understand this. If proving your existence by doubting it in any way was vital to your existence, then having doubts about the doubts you have not yet finished having would qualify as progress in cementing yourself to subsistence. Then would you imagine having missed a doubt to do so before having doubted it, or worse it happens before you've doubted yourself in that regard - what then would happen to your immortal soul?
By definition there is no such thing as "non-existence".
Yes; alas it is a valid question. The difference is that I would doubt myself before doubting the question. Do you doubt that?
Yes, but by definition all definition also fails at that stage.
That there is nothing to doubt.
That's good. A little scepticism never hurt anyone. Nice place we've got going here. Seems people are coming together. Important to have nodes to traffic wisdom such as this.
thats fair.
I appreciate that sentiment. I honestly think we die because we believe that. I really do know. The definition of existence is fairly simple; it is anything to exist - boundless, prepositional or real. It matters, or not; with magic smack evident in the middle - we decide. It's not an easy endeavor to turn around and simply live forever by the sheer belief though. But that is at least the theory. There is much to esteem in that regard. Any decision matters and that is what makes civilization a mighty interesting endeavor. I'm happy to be here. A fine crew aboard this vessel.
The whole forum topic was mocked by the mass majority of us including you. Yeah i agree with you.
How do you feel about the positive movement or "the secret" (i think there is a book called that)?
Do you study Kabbalah?
The Secret is a bit like leaving a door open with only a small scissure. Some of us wants to run in arms open and just hug whomever is behind it. However it hosts a rational fear too. Many of us knows this is real and recognizes the opening in the door for what it is. Although we might not fear what's inside; we know that this probably is the last chance we will ever get to be normal humans again. Why rush, right?
I don't mind however it goes. I love us too much to even bother. It gives me a chance to be curious. Instead I enjoy the notions of it and help whenever I may. It's both a book and a film. It really is the proverbial door. Some secret.
What about Kabbalah enticed you the most?
I forgot to "puff" you. Post above.
I don't study Kabbalah. Some say the Mormons study it some as well the Freemasons. I have studied the Talmud. It appears the Talmud makes the implicit and vague statements from the old testament law and makes them very explicit like a well written legal document. Atleast from what i've read.
How do you feel about the religions of the city states of ancient Iraq?
Intuitively I should say that it was, probably is and will be about the nature of divine being in essence. That it springs from what was originally introduced to humans of the modern world to get a sense of what a God could be. That then from divine inspiration and human cohesion sprung the precept of the Abrahamic God. Although still disputed today, I believe it is about to settle and that the then Mesopotamian religions will play an important part in re-integrating a measure of unity in the equation. That in turn will amount to a real sense of a single individible God - Tawhid. From it we will collectively realize what has happened - thus who we are. Exhilarating times. :joke:
I have spent some time as a Latter Day Saint and I have seen no signs of pure Kabbalah, although I can see that the general idea is there. It's all about divinity and how it belongs to us all anyway. Now, the Talmud - interesting stuff. In retrospect it will reveal a lot more about the mind of God than any other scripture. Although if you want to know how God did it, I recommend to study the Sibylline Books in retrospect. Knowing all of history of course is a requirement for zen in the matter. It happened on Earth though, that's for sure. The planet of solidified God - Tell-us.
Just a feeling. Please share any worthy seeming sensation pertaining to the Talmud. I would love to hear of it.
Quoting Eleonora
How do you feel about ancient temple prostitiution in ancient Iraq? This actually has occurred in other places around the world through out history including modern Hinduism.
Considering Kabbalah has mulitple interpretations and the texts and information related to it is 10s of thousands of pages (correct me if i'm wrong), why would the Mormons strictly (strictly) observe Kabbalah?
Wow, you really touch ground here. I believe that the Latter Day Saints recognize that they do not understand a single thing about Kabbalah as it were and in regard strictly observe connections - to follow the light in its most intricate sense. It's a posture of humility.
Temple prostitution is a further inquiry into the very matter of the same manner. Metaphorically speaking it sort of entails being a prostitute in a sacred temple. Realizing that your ways are foul and therefore submitting wholly to the temple proceedings in order to boundlessly correct yourself. Thus; conclusion - prostitution in temples are bad but the metaphor is good.
When it comes to these particular cases, I think we have to look at each individually. It raises high and sinks low. Some might have considered it an honor an really embraced the unknowable purpose, in which case they would have faced God. Others would have not, in which case it was a sin - both pertaining to the victim and the perpetrator. Mainly because we cannot ever know which really is which. Knowing this and facing God would have been the same at that time.
John 21:17
“Ideally too though, it does not exclude what it does not involve; it is simply just not within its ethereal purview. On it we can as a concept preclude what we do not understand and in doing so know what it is. Then it's just a matter of abstracting your way through living.” — Actually, its essential identity, a-priori, does exclude what it doesn’t involve (as this is precisely what enables us, in the first place, to possibly distinguish it as an individual thing); although the states of this being, that is, the identity of its states rather than the identity of its being, can contingently involve other things in relation, such as a perceived relation to lights, sounds, impressions, etc.,.
Correspondingly, absolutely speaking, to say that “this” involves “that” in relation, such as this observer presently involves that colored object in relation to it, is equivalent to saying that “this” isn’t “that”; & as the lack of an empirical observation of the non-relation of things which are involved in relation to each other, such as the lack in one’s lifetime with congenital cataracts of an empirical observation of the non-relation of their vision to those visibly blurred forms involved or included in relation to their vision, doesn’t mean that these things can’t possibly be not related to each other, asserting that we haven’t experienced the self excluded from things which its identity doesn’t involve, is no proof or argument that it can’t actually exclude what it doesn’t involve, neither empirically or logically.
“There is no means to a matter - so to say. Boundaries are not my thing.” — It’s not a question of what’s your thing, but what’s the thing really? & surely this isn’t determined by what you favor.
-René Descartes
Also I keep getting these bills every month or so with my name on them. If someone else acknowledges my existence that's good enough for me.
Hey... that's not a word. :grimace:
Is being conscious not proof of existence?
Do I need to elaborate? I'm recieving lots of data.
I could have said, 'because I am aware of myself and surroundings.'
Why need I say that I'm alerted?